Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
777_zamani

Limited ammo

Limited ammo  

158 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree with limited ammunition? All of the ships ? (( destroyer - cruisers - battleships and aircraft carrior ))

    • Yes :
      12
    • No :
      146

88 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ARYA]
Players
112 posts
17,796 battles

For example, a destroyer
Has the following ammo
Maximum number of AP : 240
Maximum number of HE : 240
Maximum Torpedo Number : 36

 

Keep in mind that realizing the game is essential

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,281 posts
10,707 battles

CVs already have limited ammo :cap_hmm:

 

And how would you balance this in a class?

e.g. an Atlanta might need some more ammo than a Myoko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Players
6,573 posts
Vor 1 Minute, 777_zamani sagte:

Keep in mind that realizing the game is essential

if you mean to make the game more realistic: no it is not "essential", it would kill the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
816 posts
12,440 battles

The ammo carried is consistent with the historical ammunition load outs carried in real life, a warship i.e. between 60 and 100 rounds per gun tube and a couple of reloads for the torpedoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts
13 minutes ago, 777_zamani said:

Keep in mind that realizing the game is essential

I agree. But a lot of players don't seem to do that. :Smile_teethhappy:

 

9 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The ammo carried is consistent with the historical ammunition load outs carried in real life, a warship i.e. between 60 and 100 rounds per gun tube and a couple of reloads for the torpedoes

Which still wouldn't make it realistic because only a few (mostly IJN) DDs in this game carried spare torpedoes and could reload their tubes on the open sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,081 battles

To be honest, if you have ammo and you snipe from border and miss... you are not doing yourself any favour. ON another hand where every shell counts people will be more careful :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,388 posts
7,851 battles
12 minutes ago, lup3s said:

CVs already have limited ammo :cap_hmm:

 

And how would you balance this in a class?

e.g. an Atlanta might need some more ammo than a Myoko

Well to be fair technicaly the CV has unlimited ammo too. If the planes survive (because you have fun just bombing the ocean in the corner of the map) you can spam Bombs and Bullets for the whole game. :etc_red_button:

11 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The ammo carried is consistent with the historical ammunition load outs carried in real life, a warship i.e. between 60 and 100 rounds per gun tube and a couple of reloads for the torpedoes

As far as I know more than one full reload on Torpedotubes if even one was kind of rare.

 

On topic: No.

We don't need more buffs to (mostly) BBs because the only class that doesn't need that much ammo due to the long reload and has more than enough space to store it would be - you guessed it - the already overperforming BBs. So if you make this thing relevant (so Ships actualy can run out of Ammo) those are the least effected (again).

Also if you don't count the Torpedos then most of the ships in the game had more ammunition on board than you could fire in 20 minutes in this game. :cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,704 posts
9,928 battles

How about no?

 

First of all, gameplay > realism. ESPECIALLY if the proposed change hits a ship class unprportionally harder than others. Ships already carried enough ammunition IRL to last for the typical WoWs slugging match. The only ships that would be limited (and SEVERELY so) would be DDs with their torpedo armament. Quite a onesided change and nothing short of a massive nerf to any DD that relies on its torpedoes to do its work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
905 posts
11,126 battles

Suuuure! And while we are at counting shells, this is the perfect gate drug to implement gold ammo too. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,029 posts
3,358 battles

Right, let's talk realism.

 

Sure, let's reduce the amount of torpedoes that can be fired in a game. But to maintain balance, let's then also make it realistically difficult to dodge those torpedoes. In other words, realistic rudder response times and turning circles, BBs that will suddenly need five to ten minutes to go from a full stop to full speed.... A battleship that took evasive action to avoid torpedoes would easily be out of the battle for upwards of an hour because it would take that long to get back into position. And while torpedoes weren't as prevalent in the real world as in the game, a single torpedo hit was usually enough to take anything short of a battleship completely out of the battle.

 

You guys realize that many of the major surface engagement of WW1 and 2 literally took days, right? Long periods with absolutely nothing happening, ships pursuing each other over long distances, jostling for position and finally getting to where they could fire a few salvos before the enemy managed to slip away again. 

 

Realism doesn't lend itself very well to twenty minute matches.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
778 posts
4,511 battles

No, just no

A Battleship carried enough ammunition for hours of continuous fire. 
The Minotaur enough ammunition to sustain 19 minutes of continuous fire. 

Besides you are dramatically underestimating the amount of ammunition that a Japanese Destroyer Carried in its magazines, you have given.
a single turret magazine carried about 300 rounds of ammunition so that is 900 per ship. (like the Kagero Class)

So if you had 600 rounds of High Explosive, and 300 rounds of AP i would accept that. 
that is enough for 100 full broadsides of High Explosive, that is about 11 minutes of continuous fire with just HE and about 17 minutes to empty the magazines. 

People dramatically under estimate the amount of ammunition a warship carries and with games of twenty minutes even the lightest destroyer would struggle to empty the magazines in this game. 
limiting consumables like is done now makes much more sense as there is a limit to how many planes, chunks of wood for repair, additional fuel oil for higher speed you can carry on a ship. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,716 posts
9,234 battles

If you're going for more realism, can we also have the very same torpedoes you're limiting be 5 times deadlier than they are ingame and have no marker? Good luck spotting a torpedo's wake in the heat of battle.

 

The very same low caliber HE shells you're limiting be absolutely deadly to any ship's superstructure, ruining the officer deck, wrecking the AA crew and equipment, quite literally melting the FCS electronics and exploding the metal bits, and setting a most umcomfortable BBQ on ships? Everything that would make a still fully functional BB or CA/CL turn back to port for repair?

Speaking of, repair. lol gone

 

Damage control party? If you're on fire, it takes minutes to put it out. If you're flooding from too big of a hole, you sink. Gun damaged? 30 minutes to unjam, IF you're lucky.

 

No more of those ricochets. You now operate with immunity zones. If you don't fight within your immunity zone (if any), you get penetrated. Plunging fire now very much works.

 

Radar on all the time.
 

No more concealment mechanic.

 

Realistic hit rates.

 

 

Sounds really fun.

How about YOU make that game, and we'll just keep WoWS as a neat prototype for you. One that's not changed.

 

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
588 posts
4,770 battles

Yeah! And they could even add an extra ammo type to each ship that did extra damage with higher pen and firechance that you could exchange for doubloons! They could even be hotkeyed to "2" so that only skilled players will know when to switch use them.

 

What a brilliant idea, I'm sure it won't be abused at all and nullify balance :Smile_hiding:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
778 posts
4,511 battles
14 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

Damage control party? If you're on fire, it takes minutes to put it out. If you're flooding from too big of a hole, you sink. Gun damaged? 30 minutes to unjam, IF you're lucky.

 

 

you forgot about fires spreading throughout the ship :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,509 posts
14,976 battles
35 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

How about no?

 

First of all, gameplay > realism. ESPECIALLY if the proposed change hits a ship class unprportionally harder than others. Ships already carried enough ammunition IRL to last for the typical WoWs slugging match. The only ships that would be limited (and SEVERELY so) would be DDs with their torpedo armament. Quite a onesided change and nothing short of a massive nerf to any DD that relies on its torpedoes to do its work.

Yupp, was just about to say that myself. the only DD's to carry any reloads were IJN. Of course, this would also mean that torp damage and spotting ranges should be made more realistic in turn. I wonder what BB players would have to say about torps, which cause 60.000-80.000 HP damage per pop and can only be spotted a few hundred meters away AND, of course - Japanese oxygen torps (Long Lance) could not be spotted at all. :cap_hmm:

chaos.jpg.c3fed56e350c642b18932c812fea9b50.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5 posts
2,188 battles

Sorry to answer a question with another question but what issue would such a measure solve? IMHO, changing something about gameplay without solving a problem usually means creating a brand new problem.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,033 posts
7,407 battles
2 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Japanese oxygen torps could not be spotted at all.

 

What about new upgrade called SDSC (Scuba Divers Suicide Club)? Found in slot 1 they swim around the ship and wave a flag when they spot an incoming Long Lancer :Smile_teethhappy:

 

On topic itself, just no. Reasons have been told already.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,716 posts
9,234 battles
1 minute ago, Aquila2407 said:

Sorry to answer a question with another question but what issue would such a measure solve? IMHO, changing something about gameplay without solving a problem usually means creating a brand new problem.

 

It would solve the problem of the OP haven gotten rekt by a DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,509 posts
14,976 battles
7 minutes ago, WolfGewehr said:

 

What about new upgrade called SDSC (Scuba Divers Suicide Club)? Found in slot 1 they swim around the ship and wave a flag when they spot an incoming Long Lancer :Smile_teethhappy:

 

On topic itself, just no. Reasons have been told already.

Weel, do I believe the standard procedure at the time was just to spot them, when they entered your magazine or engine room, fly 300 meters through the air and scatter yourself over a wide area. :fish_boom::cap_like:

 

Sadly, I cannot see that becoming a widely popular past-time tho.:cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
7,321 battles
43 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Right, let's talk realism.

 

Sure, let's reduce the amount of torpedoes that can be fired in a game. But to maintain balance, let's then also make it realistically difficult to dodge those torpedoes. In other words, realistic rudder response times and turning circles, BBs that will suddenly need five to ten minutes to go from a full stop to full speed.... A battleship that took evasive action to avoid torpedoes would easily be out of the battle for upwards of an hour because it would take that long to get back into position. And while torpedoes weren't as prevalent in the real world as in the game, a single torpedo hit was usually enough to take anything short of a battleship completely out of the battle.

 

You guys realize that many of the major surface engagement of WW1 and 2 literally took days, right? Long periods with absolutely nothing happening, ships pursuing each other over long distances, jostling for position and finally getting to where they could fire a few salvos before the enemy managed to slip away again. 

 

Realism doesn't lend itself very well to twenty minute matches.

 

Give Japanese DDs their traditional reloads and make the torpedoes undetectable and 4 times the damage. Torpedo wakes are a thin trace on the water 100 metres behind the torpedo at worst and almost completely invisible and even further behind the torpedo in the case of the oxygen powered IJN torpedoes. For even more realism remove hydro and catapult fighters from all ships. Then give ships realistic ammo loads of 100 to 250 rounds per gun. I don't know of any ships with less than 100 rounds per gun but I assume it's possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,081 battles
32 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Geeez I wonder why OP selected a DD as an example .... :Smile_hiding:

 

 

First time ive seen you trolling , ever....

 

I approve.. force is strong in this one :D

 

 

seal.png.463210ab226131dfaf42a9e09d2f91c6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3,828 posts
8,610 battles
13 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

 

 

First time ive seen you trolling , ever....

 

I approve.. force is strong in this one :D

 

 

seal.png.463210ab226131dfaf42a9e09d2f91c6.png

 

Thank you!

 

And yeah, a bit obvious banter can be an appropriate counter measure. Although... I doubt OP shows up here again so, yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×